Feature Requests item #3585128, was opened at 2012-11-07 04:20
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bagder
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350976&aid=3585128&group_id=976

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
>Category: libcurl
>Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Chris Wilson (gcc)
Assigned to: Daniel Stenberg (bagder)
Summary: Please add support for setting IP TOS/Precedence flags

Initial Comment:
IP TOS (Precedence) flags as described in RFC 791 are really useful for building QoS routers that treat bulk and interactive traffic differently; but only if client applications actually bother to declare whether their traffic is bulk or interactive.

SSH and bittorrent do this already, but there doesn't seem to be any way to do it in curl.

You can do it with setsockopt(IP_TOS) on all platforms that support it except Windows, which disables this functionality and uses DSCP instead (unlike everyone else).

Some discussion of whether to use IPTOS_THROUGHPUT, IPTOS_PREC_PRIORITY or something else for bulk traffic:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/bittorrent/2004-December/001060.html . I don't particularly care as long as we do *something* to mark bulk and interactive traffic differently.

Please could we add at least a flag that sets the precedence of all connections made by curl to bulk or interactive?

Even better would be heuristics to determine which mode is appropriate. My guess is that all applications of command-line curl are bulk, using libcurl to write to an output file or for any protocol except HTTP is bulk, and everything else (libcurl HTTP not to a file) is interactive.

If you accept this proposal I can try to work up a patch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Daniel Stenberg (bagder)
Date: 2012-11-08 05:07

Message:
This is a feature request, not a bug so I'm moving this ticket to that
dedicated tracker.

That said, feature requests sent to this project don't make much
difference, we really encourage you to step forward and bring your
suggestions and patched to the mailing list(s) instead and work with us
there to implement the features in collaboration with other curl hackers!

Please present this idea and how you think curl (or libcurl) should decide
what's a bulk transfer and what's interactive, and if people really think
this is a job for libcurl at all...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Chris Wilson (gcc)
Date: 2012-11-07 04:33

Message:
The first part of this is already covered by
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350976&aid=2914924&group_id=976
(still open).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350976&aid=3585128&group_id=976
Received on 2012-11-08